I suppose on the bright side, you guys handed us our own ass last night. (I'm actually paying attention to baseball now!) 6-1?! Pathetic.

Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:34 pm

alexvanv

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

As a Cleveland fan, I think this message hits home, although the similarities in futility between Cleveland and Philadelphia sports will probably limit the novelty of my perspective.

I was raised in a Cleveland baseball era that I now realize to be totally unrepresentative of how the Indians have performed historically. I was born in 1987 and first became "aware" of baseball when Jacobs Field was built in 1994. As anyone who regularly follows baseball knows, the Indians then went on a run of about seven years of AL Central dominance, winning the pennant twice but never the World Series (my memory from when I was 10 years old, watching the Indians lose Game 7 of the 1997 World Series, constitutes my rite of passage as an Cleveland fan). They faded for a while then had one close call in 2007 (blew a 3-1 ALCS lead against the Red Sox, and I swear we would've smashed the Rockies in the World Series). Now they're back to being the Indians of old.

And another thing - it figures that the only championship Atlanta achieved in that 14-year division title run was in 1995... against the Indians.

So we had some great years here, but it's impossible to look back and enjoy them because the Indians never won the World Series, and that's too bad. I feel like I should be able to enjoy the memories more, but championship futility seems to preclude that sentiment (our last one of any kind was the Browns in 1964, before the Super Bowl existed). I'm not sure that the people here would know quite what to do with themselves if one of our teams actually won a championship. As everyone knows, our "best hope" recently took his talents to South Beach. The Indians' attendance is miserable when the team isn't playoff-bound, and the Cavs are now likely to follow suit.

But apparently, our football fans are different. The Browns have been terrible - just terrible - almost uniformally since the franchise was "rebooted" in 1999. But we sell out every game. Apparently, at least for one sport, winning isn't everything. (I still watch every Sunday even if we're almost certain to lose.) But while I consider myself a baseball fan first and foremost, even I have a difficult time watching an Indians game when they're as bad as they were this year. It's just not interesting.

As far as this year is concerned, I initially believed the World Series would be Philadelphia against Texas, and I still think that's how it will ultimately turn out. I'm interested in seeing Cliff Lee go against the Phillies this year to see if they can figure him out. (No need to remind anyone, of course, that Lee was originally an Indian. Sabathia, too.) And I'm tired of the Yankees.

Alex

Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:13 pm

corpen11

Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pmPosts: 1471Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

This is coming for fan in Atlanta, the "fans" in the town are only interested in a team if it has a gimmick (Mike Vick). Most doesn't seem to are the team if they win or lose. The Braves only began to draw a crowd due to the team making the playoff and Cox's final season-we should be in the second round if our defense did play like crap. With that being said, I can see become a legit threat to the Phillies and the NL next year; good young arms, Heyward, B-Mac, Prado, Infante, etc. A young team that could take us to the promise land.

Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:42 pm

Robert Holloway

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

I struggle with this sport. I was listening to NPR the other week and hearing that in 3 hours you have about 12 minutes of action. It helped me understand why. My son just dropped out his majors team - boredom

I am in the Bay Area and had no idea the Giants were doing so well.

Go Giants?

And lastly, any sport that has it's final game as the world series is to be honest, laughable.Oh I know, there's a team from Canada

That winning mentality is definitely present here but not in the same way. Montreal doesn't suffer losers (except for hockey). When we got a CFL team back after a 10-year absence in 1996, no one showed up for two years. The Alouettes started winning and now every game sells out. Now we dominate the East Division every year.

Hockey is a religion here so it's different. We haven't won a Cup since 1993 but people still have hope. You need to marry a Molson or sell your first-born to get tickets, even in pre-season.

I'm a Cubs fan. No other professional team, in any sport, in the entire WORLD, has gone longer without a title.

My grandfather is about to turn 100, and even he has never experienced a Cubs WS victory.

Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:26 pm

PeachyPete

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

James Berardinelli wrote:

Baseball is cyclical. Those at the top today will eventually tumble down the mountain into the valley. Some teams do this more slowly and with greater grace than others (the Yankees, for example). Others flat-out collapse and can't seem to find the path back to the top (the Pirates, the Royals).

I think this is a bit misleading, James. This is mostly because of the ridiculous lack of salary cap in baseball. Even with revenue sharing, a big market team like the Yankees has a huge edge over small market teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City. Some small market teams are able to contend, but there is a huge inherent disparity between what the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox can afford to pay players, and what the Royals and Pirates can afford to pay players. That's why the good players on those kinds teams (add Minnesota and Oakland too, even though they usually field solid teams) usually end up playing for a big market team.

The Yankess tumble will be a 3-4 years tumble until they reload with a huge free agent class (see 2 offseasons ago). The Pirates and Royals have to build through the draft, which takes years and years (see how long it took Tampa Bay to have a decent team). It's just unfair to give big market teams that big of a competitive edge. Of course, they don't want parity in baseball because those big market teams bring the money in. Who wants to watch a Kansas City-Pittsburgh World Series? Very few people outside of Kansas City and Pittsburgh.

Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:35 pm

n4ry4

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

I suppose winning's not the most important thing, but it would sure be nice if it happened once in a while.

(coming from a Detroit Lions fan).

Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:52 pm

Bushteaser

Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:56 amPosts: 56Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

Quote:

Who wants to watch a Kansas City-Pittsburgh World Series? Very few people outside of Kansas City and Pittsburgh.

Funny! I once wrote an action screenplay and the climax took place at the World Series between the Montreal Expos and KC Royals. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke is my motto...

Wow, what a great thread. We don't talk sports much here but count me in.

PeachyPete wrote:

Who wants to watch a Kansas City-Pittsburgh World Series? Very few people outside of Kansas City and Pittsburgh.

I'd love it should those teams get there some day. And the media would probably promote the hell out of it with the dreaded "Cinderella" cliche. Btw I agree with everything you said about the salary cap. Commissioner Selig is stuck in the dark ages and that's part of why the sport isn't growing like it could.

I live in Maryland and I like our teams, but I'm also a huge fan of Chicago-based teams (a lot of my relatives and family members either live there or grew up there). Yesterday, I went to a pub in Washington D.C made up entirely of Chicago Bears fans, and even though the team lost, that wasn't the defining memory of my Sunday. What I remember is the cheering and roaring of the entire pub when good plays were made, the "Bear Down" fight song playing over the speakers after a touchdown, and bonding and cracking jokes with total strangers. And this was during a loss.

JB makes a great point. We crave winning, but the thrill evaporates quickly. The atmosphere, thrills, and anticipation keeps us coming back.

Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:02 pm

TheTexasTwister

Gaffer

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:54 amPosts: 25

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

I can somewhat relate. I live in San Antonio and have been following two teams with great passion since I was a kid (way back in the paleolithic era). The Dallas Cowboys in football and the San Antonio Spurs in basketball. I've never had a great passion for baseball so I only following the Astros and the Rangers with just a passing interest. A little more now that I am older than when I was ten.

I became fully "aware" of the the two teams at the same time, but at rather odd points in their histories. Dallas had just completed its greatest decade (The 1970's) so I got to watch the Cowboys win plenty of games, but never got to watch a Superbowl in which they played or won until 1992. I knew of the Cowboys' history of winning and got a small taste of it in the early 1980's, but only got to experience the decline of the team until Jimmy Johnson was hired and lead the team to dramatic turn around the two Superbowl wins in the 1990's. The team has been mired in mid level mediocrity every since.

With the Spurs it was right around the time that David Robinson was drafted. I came later to the game of basketball because I could not understand the game as well as football back then. Terms like "the half court game," "pick and roll" and "Illegal use of hands" were as alien to me as the Klingon language. When David Robinson finally joined the Spurs the team had added a few other exceptional players and the team became like the Atlanta Braves: perennial post season entrants, but never making it to the NBA Finals. In Robinson's first year the team bowed out in the post season, but the fans gave the team huge welcome after returning from the final loss that year.

But Spurs fans got used to winning in the regular season and expected more winning in the playoffs. The same fans who cheered the team that year after losing the in the playoffs began to boo the team after every post season exit. Spurs fans embraced the "... it's how you play the game" credo until the Spurs could never get over the hump. Then winning became more important than just playing the game. When the San Antonio Spurs won it's first NBA Championship in 1999 the fans here went wild. But the three consecutive post season exits that followed led to more booing. The three championships that followed in 2003, 2005 and 2007 were gratefully welcomed. But with the team's best player (Tim Duncan) now in "sports old age" and nearing retirement it feels like it did in the years before Duncan arrived. Always making the playoffs, but never winning the title.

I suppose if the Spurs had spent many years as loveable losers like the Mets or the Cubs our perspectives might be different. But even before David Robinson arrived we had George "The Iceman" Gervin and a runaway offense (but virtually no defense to complement it). Our perspectives here in San Antonio is one of always being on the cusp until finally grabbing the brass ring.

The perspective of the Cowboys fan is different. We demand championships. The team has won five NFL Championships and played in more Superbowl games (eight) than any other team. Five came in the 1970's alone. The Dallas collapse in the 1980's only lasted five years before Johnson arrived. Since Superbowl 30 it has been ups and downs, but no championship teams. But we still demand them in the same way that Yankees' fans or Lakers' fans demand them.

And I yes, I do hold different demands and perspectives for each of the two teams.

So I know how you feel James,... kind of.

P.S. The Rangers are currently in a League Championship Series with the Yankees. I'm keeping one eye on that series. I certainly want Texas to win the World Series. It would be great have a MLB Champion here in Texas. It would finally give us at least one championship for each of the four major sports (NFL: Dallas Cowboys [5]; NBA: Houston Rockets [2], San Antonio Spurs [4]; NHL: Dallas Stars [1]; MLB: Texas Rangers?)

Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:22 pm

Unke

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

Quote:

In 2008, the Phillies triumphed in the World Series. I was, of course, ecstatic at the moment it happened. I celebrated by having a small glass of Bailey's and talking excitedly with a friend on the phone for about an hour.

This made me laugh out loud, ecstatic celebrations, indeed.

Sorry if this should be a snide remark, but from my perspective as a European (soccer) football supporter, a small glass of Bailey’s is significantly below the amount of alcohol usually consumed in the warm up for a match.

Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:06 am

Sexual Chocolate

Director

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pmPosts: 1754Location: New Hampshire

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

I'm not a big baseball fan, but having been born and raised in the Philadelphia area, it was nice to see the Phillies win the Series.

I am a die-hard Eagles fan, but as an Eagles fan, you kind of get used to seeing them get close to winning it all, but never actually winning it all. I've pretty much accepted that, so I can cheer for them every Sunday and not be disappointed. It is just a game, anyway. And if they ever do win the Super Bowl, I can be happy about it, because it was so unexpected.

But I can't help but feel a little bad for Chicago Cubs fans...

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:01 pm

Shade

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

Robert Holloway wrote:

I struggle with this sport. I was listening to NPR the other week and hearing that in 3 hours you have about 12 minutes of action. It helped me understand why. My son just dropped out his majors team - boredom

That's a fair stance by your son in that I'm sure the game wasn't interesting to him for whatever reason, but the game is certainly as intricate, if not more so, than any other. To say that it only features 12 minutes of action would be the equivilant of saying that only shots on goal are relevant in watching a soccer game. Not everyone has to like it, certainly, but to dismiss it as boring is as valid or invalid as dismissing soccer or chess or Bergman or Ozu as boring.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:05 am

Robert Holloway

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

Shade wrote:

Robert Holloway wrote:

I struggle with this sport. I was listening to NPR the other week and hearing that in 3 hours you have about 12 minutes of action. It helped me understand why. My son just dropped out his majors team - boredom

That's a fair stance by your son in that I'm sure the game wasn't interesting to him for whatever reason, but the game is certainly as intricate, if not more so, than any other. To say that it only features 12 minutes of action would be the equivilant of saying that only shots on goal are relevant in watching a soccer game. Not everyone has to like it, certainly, but to dismiss it as boring is as valid or invalid as dismissing soccer or chess or Bergman or Ozu as boring.

Good points!

However, I was round at friends on Friday and their son has dropped out of baseball and taken up LaCrosse.Same arguments. Bizarre coincidence.

The 12 minute thing is because the game stops. In soccer and other continuous sports it's not a realistic comparison because action is happening. It was a set of US scientists who did that analysis on NPR.

Anyway, the whole world knows soccer is better than the world series (titter) of baseball

Rob

Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:27 am

Shade

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

Robert Holloway wrote:

Good points!

However, I was round at friends on Friday and their son has dropped out of baseball and taken up LaCrosse.Same arguments. Bizarre coincidence.

The 12 minute thing is because the game stops. In soccer and other continuous sports it's not a realistic comparison because action is happening. It was a set of US scientists who did that analysis on NPR.

Anyway, the whole world knows soccer is better than the world series (titter) of baseball

Rob

Personally I agree with you that soccer is the better game, and I've heard the NPR report and others like it, but I still think that the idea that the "action" can be condensed in any meaningful way is disingenuous to the game itself. For better or worse, baseball is about the intracacies of an at-bat, the gamesmanship of a batter or pitcher taking an extra long break or pitching fast, the mindgames between managers -- in short, I think a good argument could be made that any good baseball fan could tell you everything about the game by watching everything except the "action." Getting into these comparasin ideas isn't perfect, but I'll try: if american football is like the hard-hitting, by-the-numbers, no-subtlety of rock and roll, and soccer and basketball are like the free-flowing nature of jazz, then, well, baseball doesn't have a musical equivilant. Baseball is like a film by Malick: could you convey the purpose and feeling of his films by showing only the dialogue? I don't wax poetic about baseball in the way that some do, but there's validity to the idea that it's about the non-actioin as much as the action.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:37 am

Timmy Shoes

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

Man, does this message hit close to home.

As a lifelong Mets fan, I can easily relate to JB's sentiments, even though by default I hate the Phillies.

I've always been able to relate to the underdog teams more easily than the outrightly dominate ones; I think there is always more charm and vivacity in the team that always puts 110% out there on the field and just scratches by than the team that loftily cruises through the season without any legitimate excitement because they're just that damned good. But I digress.

In addition to being a lifelong Mets fan, I also have the pleasure (read: curse) of being born and raised (and still residing in) the Bronx. Don't get me wrong, I love my borough, but being a lone wolf Mets fans in a pack of wild Yankees fan is not always an enjoyable thing to do. This is exacerbated by the fact unlike most of my peers (I'm only 20 years of age), I have respect for the game and enjoy seeing it played "the right way," but to them it's all about winning, like JB said. Moreover, I always laugh after hearing the radio stations talk about the Yankees after a postseason loss. Yankees fans are so oblivious; their sense of entitlement is staggering. It's like they think their team is never allowed to lose. The worst part is, and JB touched upon this in his article, is that the young fans don't realize that the Yankees were a terrible team for most of the 80's. In fact, the Mets were considered the good team in New York during that era. Mention that, though, and they'll laugh at you, and say things like "stop livin' in the past!"

Now, while I hold disdain for the Phillies because of the division rivalry, I have respect for them, which is another trait that seems to be disappearing amongst the new generation of baseball fans. I love my team as well, but I hate the people who operate their system. It's like the Mets try desperately to be like the Yankees, spending tons of money getting the best players. Don't get me wrong, that can be an effective way to build a team, and the Phillies have done that in recent years, but the Yankees and the Phillies actually do a good job of it...I'm sick and tired of the Mets bringing in supposed "all-star" primma-donnas who underperform and play nonchalantly. I wish the Mets organization would take after the Tampa Bay Rays; they built their team from the ground up. Per capita they are by far the best team in baseball; I know they got knocked out of the playoffs by the Rangers, but their entire team salary is like, 1/20th that of the Phillies and probably like 1/50th of the Yankees (I exaggerate, but it might not be a fallacy that A-rod's salary alone is more than the entire Tampa Bay payroll). I'd rather suck for 4 years in a row and build up our farm system, so we can win 3 world series in a row, than continue to get celebrity players who never seem to get the job done.

I have a theory that the Mets are going to win in 2013. Why? Because in 1973, the Mets went to the World Series and lost, when my dad was 10 years old (or very close to 10). Thirteen years later, in 1986, they won. In 2000, when I was 10, the Mets went to the world series and lost. Thus, 2013, y'know, after the world ends and all, the Mets are gonna win the world series!

Joking aside, when the Mets do win the world series, it's going to have much more significance than another Yankee's victory. Why? Because we don't win that often. I think the consistent play-off contention of the World Series has spoiled Yankees fans to the point where a World Series' significance is extremely diminished. Not for the Mets, however. I just have to be patient; like JB said, baseball is cyclical. Lets just hope none of our favorite teams end up like the Cubs...going on 109 years now without a Series championship? Ouch...

Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:57 pm

spencerworth34

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

I don't understand why it's inevitable that the Phillies are going to go back to being a mediocre team. They have a huge market and a big payroll. Sure, they will have bad seasons now and then as does every team, but they should be able to at least field a team that gives its fans hope every season. Im a Red Sox fan and, sadly, we didn't make the playoffs this season. But every season for the past decade the Red Sox have at least put a team out that makes them a contender.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:54 pm

KRoss

Re: October 18, 2010: "Winning through Losing"

spencerworth34 wrote:

I don't understand why it's inevitable that the Phillies are going to go back to being a mediocre team. They have a huge market and a big payroll.

Far too much talk about market and payroll when it comes to baseball. You never hear about this in the other sports (probably because everyone except MLB has some form of salary cap). The Mets, Cubs, Red Sox, and Angels fit the "big market and payroll" description as well as any (I'm not counting the Dodgers right now because of the enormous damage the McCourt drama is causing) but all missed the playoffs this year.

Obviously money and statistics are a huge deal in this sport, but you know what counts more than anything else? Chemistry. 162 games (plus up to 1 month of postseason should you get there) is quite a grind, and the teams that work together the best usually perform the best.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum